Scinapse 2021-2022 Undergraduate Science Case Competition: Surviving the Climate Crisis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Scinapse Undergraduate Science Case Competition (USCC) provides an opportunity for undergraduate students to experience the development of a novel research proposal. A case is presented to all participants and, using in-depth literature search (publications, reports, studies and published writings), students connect and pinpoint key elements allowing them to develop a hypothesis in support of the case in question. Participants also develop a methodology which will test the validity of their hypothesis. This year's case topic focused on climate change as a global crisis that threatens many of the fundamental determinants of a healthy planet. Innovation and science play a crucial role in enabling a global, multifaceted response to this crisis – from reducing greenhouse gas emissions, to building resilience to the harmful effects of climate change. In teams of 2-4, undergraduate students created novel research proposals that may hold the key to combating the global climate crisis. The top 10% of written submissions are highlighted in this abstract booklet.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.093 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it